The "raiding" of the Social Security Trust. What you don't know, and why you're probably an idiot.

[flacaltenn]

[


How will you pay those that paid in back? You are going to get people to pay in, and not get back. This is the problem. The system can pay about a dime on every dollar of promise. Your idea is to burden your children and grandchildren with a stupid solution. I know that sounds blunt, but if you are going to end it, just end it.

For starters we can do away with welfare in this country. Instead of giving food stamps to illegals and welfare queens we use that money to pay back the people that paid into SS.

Ron Paul came up with a great doable plan in 2012 to reduce the Federal budget a trillion year and that was with continued funding of Social Security.

If we stop funding domestic entitlements and welfare and interventionism overseas we can get back on the track of fiscal responsibility.

Ron Paul's plan was to make SS a ward of the state. In other words, he wanted to make it bigger and give it a larger revenue reach.

Problem is --- all the soundbite fixes we hear now -- turns it into a welfare program. And a sadistic one as well. Can you imagine a 67 yr old roofer with a bad back being forced to WAIT to collect retirement? It's all political horseshit.

Before any politician "fixes it" --- the public has to understand the gross mismanagement that has occurred.

 

[Flash]

The new proposed budget that was debated a few weeks ago takes $150 billion out of pension payments and transfers it to disability, which is one of the most corrupted programs the government has.

Budget Deal Robs Social Security To Pay Disability, Again - Breitbart

Budget Deal Robs Social Security To Pay Disability, Again

Now, with the DI program expected to face a 19% shortfall next year, Obama and Republicans plan to “borrow” the needed funds from the main Social Security program to make up for the shortfall. After all, the old-age benefits trust fund will only face insolvency in 2033 so there is time to kick the can down the road. I guess they figure that once we are diverting $141 billion from the original purpose of the program, why not throw in an extra $30 billion?

The budget deal reached last night attempts to stave off depletion of the Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund at the end of 2016 by “reallocating” about $150 billion over the next three years from the Social Security Trust Fund to the Disability Insurance Trust Fund.

The irony here is of course that you have tended to discredit the loan-to-myself theory, and now espouse an I-stole-from-myself argument. You realize that DI is part of Social Security. Your article headline pretends that disability is not part of Social Security. This is an income transfer from future retirees to current beneficiaries who are disabled.

Disability in Social Security has become a monster and is raiding the pension fund.

Don't make me go and get the articles about the massive fraud in the program.

These illegals with stolen Social Security numbers have learned how to scam that system. The welfare queens have learned how to scam the system. It is an easy system to scam thanks to the wonderful idiots running our government.

The whole Social Security program sucks. Disability sucks the most.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's the diff between GE and the thieves in Washington..


The money was "borrowed" (stolen) for 35 yrs but YET -- no DEBT went on the books of the Treasury as pertains to the Unified budget. The treasury could not issue "Treasury Bonds" to the Trust Fund because that would give away the fraud. Nobody would believe claiming the same money was both a debt and an asset. So they took SS "off-book" so that the phoney debt (intragovernmental notes) would not cause them to book REAL debt in the annual budget. Remember -- every Treasury Bond issued goes into the debt and deficit. SSA will tell you -- that what they've given for T.F. are NOT Treasury Bonds. It's felony book-keeping..


WHY? Because the government then refused to cut budget to OFFSET the money they stole. And BOOM 35 yrs later -- the surplus ends and the deficits begin. So they BORROW money to repay the stolen (excuse me -- borrowed) money from excess payroll taxes, THUS ---- quite simply ---- they borrowed the same money TWICE.


And who is responsible for borrowing both dollars? Yup.. Now you got it..


And GE doesn't have taxpayers backing up their borrowing. Even if they borrow it twice. Thought you'd realize that.

You have some points even if GE is a bank, and is protected by the government.


If the Unified Budget doesn't show the debt, that means that people who quote the UB aren't very bright. The debt held by SS is counted for example to the debt ceiling. You are right. Nobody would believe accounting which claimed “the same money was both a debt and an asset.” So why are you quoting it. (It is actually worse than that)..


No one will tell you that the TF holds Treasury Bonds. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject will tell you that the TF hold securities that are indistinguishable from Treasury Bonds. The fact is that the TF holds better assets but that is a longer story.


Since inception the system has collected about 17 trilllion. 15 has been distributed as benefits. About 1.5 was generated financing interest. So what money are you suggesting that was stolen?

There's a big diff between the IOUs in T.F. and Treasury Bonds. Think for a minute. If the surplus had been used to the BENEFIT of SS futures, they should have BOUGHT real Treasury bonds from the existing market with the surplus and NOT let Congress spend it . THAT WAY -- the surplus would relieve the debt by taking those bonds off the market and our debt TODAY would be about $2Trill less.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Bless you for showing up Joe. I need to work today, but this is important enough for me to participant in. Need reinforcements. The only beef I have with you is that the surpluses actually DID go into the General Fund. They were spent on bombs, Viagra, mohair subsidies.

Another example is when Obama and the Dems cut the SS payroll contributions (2009 or so) and precipitated an earlier insolvency in the fund. Essentially he payed for the SS deficit by adding debt to General Fund/Treasury who had to issue NEW debt to cover the shortfalls that they created.

Very few times do I get blessings. I need them.

The surpluses went to the General Fund. Government Securities when the other way. This is no different than a private pension. The only difference is that the private pension has to go through an investment banker. This is a staple article source for me.

Here is my piece from IVN : Despite What You've Heard, No One Is Stealing from Social Security - IVN.us

Is this the quote to which you are referring :

"Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public."

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

[


How will you pay those that paid in back? You are going to get people to pay in, and not get back. This is the problem. The system can pay about a dime on every dollar of promise. Your idea is to burden your children and grandchildren with a stupid solution. I know that sounds blunt, but if you are going to end it, just end it.

For starters we can do away with welfare in this country. Instead of giving food stamps to illegals and welfare queens we use that money to pay back the people that paid into SS.

Ron Paul came up with a great doable plan in 2012 to reduce the Federal budget a trillion year and that was with continued funding of Social Security.

If we stop funding domestic entitlements and welfare and interventionism overseas we can get back on the track of fiscal responsibility.

Ron Paul's plan was to make SS a ward of the state. In other words, he wanted to make it bigger and give it a larger revenue reach.

Problem is --- all the soundbite fixes we hear now -- turns it into a welfare program. And a sadistic one as well. Can you imagine a 67 yr old roofer with a bad back being forced to WAIT to collect retirement? It's all political horseshit.

Before any politician "fixes it" --- the public has to understand the gross mismanagement that has occurred.

Here is an article that I wrote on Congressional testimony from 1944. The gist of the piece says that the testimony is the most accurate forecast of SS in history. The first baby boomer had yet to be born. He doesn't even mention demographics. No one is living longer at the time - and he says nothing about worker to retirees, nothing about increasing life expectancy, none of today's favorite clichés...

But he is right. That makes him very lucky or very smart.

Predicting Social Security’s Financial Imbalance : FedSmith.com

"One of the most compelling pieces ever written about Social Security was penned by A. J. Altmeyer, and presented to Congress in 1944. The piece makes the man look like Nostradamus."

 

[flacaltenn]

The Trust Fund has nothing in it that helps to pay the deficits that SS is now running. It's full of IOUs (not investments) and when those IOUs are cashed into the Treasury --- they have to issue NEW debt so SS can get paid. They borrowed the money TWICE and taxpayers pick up the tab for the fraud..

Now I don't expect you to believe me. But -- I've posted the exact statement from SS Admin and CBO about 3 times in this thread. Saying that (roughly) neither the bonds held in SS Trust or the interest on those bonds helps the treasury cover SS income shortfalls. You've been misled.. Because you only read the first few pages of the yearly SSA prospectus. And after the fictitious book keeping makes folks happy -- they admit that surplus was stolen -- there is nothing of value in the T.F. -- and the taxpayers have to pay AGAIN to borrow the same money.

Without the Trust Fund today benefits would be automatically reduced by law. So by definition the Trust Fund must have something that helps pay the deficits that SS is now running.

Sadly, I have read more than the first few pages of the yearly Trustees report. I have to confess that I regret time that I can't get back. The exact statement from OMB (I think your actual source) is painfully misconstrued. The bonds held by the Trust Fund will not help the government pay SS benefits. This is a stupid comment because the government distributes benefits. It does not pay them. Payroll taxes pay them. This is what the quote from OMB reduces to : the bonds held by the TF will not help the government repay the bonds held by the TF.

Nope.. Actually the sources are SSA and OMB. That disclaimer appears in the back of every yearly SSA report that I've looked at (at least thru 2012 or so).. But your concluding line is right on. And it's the core of the fiction that folks have been fed about any "value" in the Trust Fund..

You can also find maybe a dozen Senators and Congress people who have fessed up to the fraud.. Including Harry Reid -- before he became "radicalized"..

NYcarbineer needs to get this THEFT from a friendly source. I clipped this 15 yrs ago. and if the link is not there, just ask and I will find a new one..

Tax the Rich to Repay Looted Social Security Money | Dissident Voice


In 1990, Reid, along with a few other senators, was trying to protect the future of Social Security by telling the truth about it. In a speech on the Senate floor, on October 9, 1990, Senator Reid made the following statement:

The discussion is are we as a country violating a trust by spending Social Security trust fund money’s for some purpose other than for which they were intended. The obvious answer is yes…On that chart in emblazoned red letters is what has been taking place here, embezzlement. During the period of growth we have had during the past 10 years, the growth has been from two sources. One, a large credit card with no limits on it, and, two, we have been stealing money from the Social Security recipients of this country.

Senator Reid was right in denouncing the raiding of the trust fund in 1990, but he didn’t follow through with his battle. Once he got into a leadership position, he abandoned his fight to end the looting and just ignored the illegal practice after that.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The new proposed budget that was debated a few weeks ago takes $150 billion out of pension payments and transfers it to disability, which is one of the most corrupted programs the government has.

Budget Deal Robs Social Security To Pay Disability, Again - Breitbart

Budget Deal Robs Social Security To Pay Disability, Again

Now, with the DI program expected to face a 19% shortfall next year, Obama and Republicans plan to “borrow” the needed funds from the main Social Security program to make up for the shortfall. After all, the old-age benefits trust fund will only face insolvency in 2033 so there is time to kick the can down the road. I guess they figure that once we are diverting $141 billion from the original purpose of the program, why not throw in an extra $30 billion?

The budget deal reached last night attempts to stave off depletion of the Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund at the end of 2016 by “reallocating” about $150 billion over the next three years from the Social Security Trust Fund to the Disability Insurance Trust Fund.

The irony here is of course that you have tended to discredit the loan-to-myself theory, and now espouse an I-stole-from-myself argument. You realize that DI is part of Social Security. Your article headline pretends that disability is not part of Social Security. This is an income transfer from future retirees to current beneficiaries who are disabled.

Disability in Social Security has become a monster and is raiding the pension fund.

Don't make me go and get the articles about the massive fraud in the program.

These illegals with stolen Social Security numbers have learned how to scam that system. The welfare queens have learned how to scam the system. It is an easy system to scam thanks to the wonderful idiots running our government.

The whole Social Security program sucks. Disability sucks the most.

Actually disability is round-off. Completely making it a ward of the retirement system would cost the retirement system a year of solvency.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Problem is --- all the soundbite fixes we hear now -- turns it into a welfare program. And a sadistic one as well. Can you imagine a 67 yr old roofer with a bad back being forced to WAIT to collect retirement? It's all political horseshit.

Before any politician "fixes it" --- the public has to understand the gross mismanagement that has occurred.

You are spot on.

Here is my article in TheHill on Jeb Bush's plan, which is really Chris Christie's plan. The problem isn't the 67 year old roofer. It is the 67 year old anyone.

Bush’s Social Security plan like Christie’s, not like FDR’s

"In terms of Social Security, Bush's plan is not new. In fact, it largely replicates the plan offered by Chris Christie last April. Both plans incorporate a new COLA formula that embraces Chain-CPI, increase retirement age, and target the benefits of the "wealthy." Each proposal provides hand-outs to existing seniors that come directly from future seniors. "

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Nope.. Actually the sources are SSA and OMB. That disclaimer appears in the back of every yearly SSA report that I've looked at (at least thru 2012 or so).. But your concluding line is right on. And it's the core of the fiction that folks have been fed about any "value" in the Trust Fund..

You can also find maybe a dozen Senators and Congress people who have fessed up to the fraud.. Including Harry Reid -- before he became "radicalized"..

NYcarbineer needs to get this THEFT from a friendly source. I clipped this 15 yrs ago. and if the link is not there, just ask and I will find a new one..

Tax the Rich to Repay Looted Social Security Money | Dissident Voice


In 1990, Reid, along with a few other senators, was trying to protect the future of Social Security by telling the truth about it. In a speech on the Senate floor, on October 9, 1990, Senator Reid made the following statement:

The discussion is are we as a country violating a trust by spending Social Security trust fund money’s for some purpose other than for which they were intended. The obvious answer is yes…On that chart in emblazoned red letters is what has been taking place here, embezzlement. During the period of growth we have had during the past 10 years, the growth has been from two sources. One, a large credit card with no limits on it, and, two, we have been stealing money from the Social Security recipients of this country.

Senator Reid was right in denouncing the raiding of the trust fund in 1990, but he didn’t follow through with his battle. Once he got into a leadership position, he abandoned his fight to end the looting and just ignored the illegal practice after that.

I don't really listen to politicians - Harry Reid in particular. If you have a quote from SSA, I would be surprised. In the latest report, the Trustees discredited the unified budget concept. I have discredited it elsewhere - and I will tell you that the Trustees are polite.

 

[Fishlore]

Social Security is most definitely NOT a Ponzi Scheme. All Ponzi Schemes are predicated on the sale of securities. Social Security doesn't sell anything. Ponzi Schemes are driven by the investors' desire for profit. Social Security has no investors and does not claim to make profit.

Social Security is a tax program. Ponzi Schemes are not tax programs. The taxation rate is fixed by Congress, as are the eligibility and payment features. It is true that Social Security is inter-generational, that the benefits paid out today were raised by taxes paid previously. Ponzi Schemes never last that long.

The "Ponzi Scheme" nonsense is a tired meme of talk radio. You are, of course, entirely within your rights to hate Social Security and explain why you do so. To use tendentious false analogies as evidence is mere propaganda of the lowest sort. Not that it matters much. The fringe right has about as much chance of toppling Social Security as a mutt pissing on the Washington Monument does of knocking over that noble obelisk..

Ponzi scheme is actually a great definition.

It describes a system where there is a pyramid where the last "investors" get screwed because everybody below them took the money. With a $56 trillion future liability there is a almost certain chance a lot of people are going to get screwed sometime in the future.

The "profit" in this stupid scheme is the money that was raided from the fund that was used by corrupt politicians to fund other projects that had nothing to do with the retirement plan. They paid off unions and special interest groups and got re-elected and maintained power while the people paying the payroll tax got screwed.

When you get corrupt politicians, elected by special interest groups access to a truckload of money they will find a way to spend it, no matter what it was earmarked for. We should never trust government.

The government does not need to be in the business of worrying about your retirement. That is your responsibility. If you are irresponsible then that is your problem. Do better next time.

Thank you for your condescending patience as I try to explain the obvious to someone who doesn't want to know it. There are no investors in Social Security. Social Security is not an investment. Social Security is a tax program that provides need-based financial assistance to the disabled and those in retirement.

The money you pay in FICA is not invested. Your SS account is not an investment. It is merely an estimated minimum of the income assistance you will be entitled to receive. The actual amount, like the FICA tax rate is a federal law, not an investment.

You should be ashamed of yourself as an American to say things such as "If you are irresponsible then that is your problem." Apparently, you have no imam, rabbi or pastor who is around to teach the basics of humans society and the United States Constitution. Your views are not stupid, they are simply wrong. I feel sorry for you.

 

[Flash]

[


How will you pay those that paid in back? You are going to get people to pay in, and not get back. This is the problem. The system can pay about a dime on every dollar of promise. Your idea is to burden your children and grandchildren with a stupid solution. I know that sounds blunt, but if you are going to end it, just end it.

For starters we can do away with welfare in this country. Instead of giving food stamps to illegals and welfare queens we use that money to pay back the people that paid into SS.

Ron Paul came up with a great doable plan in 2012 to reduce the Federal budget a trillion year and that was with continued funding of Social Security.

If we stop funding domestic entitlements and welfare and interventionism overseas we can get back on the track of fiscal responsibility.

Ron Paul's plan was to make SS a ward of the state. In other words, he wanted to make it bigger and give it a larger revenue reach.

Problem is --- all the soundbite fixes we hear now -- turns it into a welfare program. And a sadistic one as well. Can you imagine a 67 yr old roofer with a bad back being forced to WAIT to collect retirement? It's all political horseshit.

Before any politician "fixes it" --- the public has to understand the gross mismanagement that has occurred.

Here is an article that I wrote on Congressional testimony from 1944. The gist of the piece says that the testimony is the most accurate forecast of SS in history. The first baby boomer had yet to be born. He doesn't even mention demographics. No one is living longer at the time - and he says nothing about worker to retirees, nothing about increasing life expectancy, none of today's favorite clichés...

But he is right. That makes him very lucky or very smart.

Predicting Social Security’s Financial Imbalance : FedSmith.com

"One of the most compelling pieces ever written about Social Security was penned by A. J. Altmeyer, and presented to Congress in 1944. The piece makes the man look like Nostradamus."

Trying to figure out what went wrong may make an interesting graduate thesis in some institute of higher learning some place but it does nothing to change the fact that there is a basic flaw in the program.

As I mentioned before the American people were so stupid and naive as to allow the government to take their money with the promise that they would get it back some day.

Maybe you can blame that stupidity and naivety to the fact they were a Great Depression generation and they thought the government would take care of them in old age.

Maybe they trusted the government a lot more back then. They didn't really think the politicians that were elected by special interest groups would screw them by spending the money on other things but that is what happen.

The program was doomed for failure from the beginning. It was just a matter of time before the politicians figured out that an income stream they could tap in order to give welfare to illegals to buy future Democrat votes, subsidies to Solyndra executives (who were Obama's campaign bundlers) and put money into the UAW pension fund, among many other things.

Maybe if we didn't have corrupt politicians, elected by special interest groups, then we could have made it work but corruption and self interest is how American politics work so the idea was always doomed for failure.

 

[flacaltenn]

[


How will you pay those that paid in back? You are going to get people to pay in, and not get back. This is the problem. The system can pay about a dime on every dollar of promise. Your idea is to burden your children and grandchildren with a stupid solution. I know that sounds blunt, but if you are going to end it, just end it.

For starters we can do away with welfare in this country. Instead of giving food stamps to illegals and welfare queens we use that money to pay back the people that paid into SS.

Ron Paul came up with a great doable plan in 2012 to reduce the Federal budget a trillion year and that was with continued funding of Social Security.

If we stop funding domestic entitlements and welfare and interventionism overseas we can get back on the track of fiscal responsibility.

Ron Paul's plan was to make SS a ward of the state. In other words, he wanted to make it bigger and give it a larger revenue reach.

Problem is --- all the soundbite fixes we hear now -- turns it into a welfare program. And a sadistic one as well. Can you imagine a 67 yr old roofer with a bad back being forced to WAIT to collect retirement? It's all political horseshit.

Before any politician "fixes it" --- the public has to understand the gross mismanagement that has occurred.

Here is an article that I wrote on Congressional testimony from 1944. The gist of the piece says that the testimony is the most accurate forecast of SS in history. The first baby boomer had yet to be born. He doesn't even mention demographics. No one is living longer at the time - and he says nothing about worker to retirees, nothing about increasing life expectancy, none of today's favorite clichés...

But he is right. That makes him very lucky or very smart.

Predicting Social Security’s Financial Imbalance : FedSmith.com

"One of the most compelling pieces ever written about Social Security was penned by A. J. Altmeyer, and presented to Congress in 1944. The piece makes the man look like Nostradamus."

Trying to figure out what went wrong may make an interesting graduate thesis in some institute of higher learning some place but it does not nothing to change the fact that there is a basic flaw in the program.

As I mentioned before the American people were so stupid and naive as to allow the government to take their money with the promise that they would get it back some day.

Maybe you can blame that stupidity and naivety to the fact they were a Great Depression generation and they thought the government would take care of them in old age.

Maybe they trusted the government a lot more back then. They didn't really think the politicians that were elected by special interest groups would screw them by spending the money on other things but that is what happen.

The program was doomed for failure from the beginning. It was just a matter of time before the politicians figured out that an income stream they could tap in order to give welfare to illegals to buy future Democrat votes, subsidies to Solyndra executives (who were Obama's campaign bundlers) and put money into the UAW pension fund, among many other things.

Maybe if we didn't have corrupt politicians, elected by special interest groups, then we could have made it work but corruption and self interest is how American politics work so the idea was always doomed for failure.

Sadly Flash -- the GOOD news is -- there's no more SS surplus (overcharging) to steal.. So that toy has been taken away from Congress. If there ARE "fixes" to the plan -- they need to address the handling of any FUTURE surpluses -- so this never happens again..

And BTW -- this applies to almost EVERY "trust fund" that the Feds have created. The cupboard there is bare also..

 

[Flash]

[Q


The money you pay in FICA is not invested. Your SS account is not an investment. It is merely an estimated minimum of the income assistance you will be entitled to receive. The actual amount, like the FICA tax rate is a federal law, not an investment.

No shit Sherlock. It suppose to be a Trust Fund but that ship sailed a long time ago. People like Obama needed the money to pay the UAW pension funds and to buy the vote of illegal aliens with welfare so that money is kaput. That is why we are in trouble.

You should be ashamed of yourself as an American to say things such as "If you are irresponsible then that is your problem." Apparently, you have no imam, rabbi or pastor who is around to teach the basics of humans society and the United States Constitution. Your views are not stupid, they are simply wrong. I feel sorry for you.

I am ashamed of the country becoming an out of control oppressive debt ridden welfare state that caters to the welfare queens and discourages personal responsibility.

If you really understood what religion teaches you would know that charity should come from the heart, family and church, not from the power of some corrupt politician trying to buy the votes of special interest.

Personal responsibility is a concept that a Libtard has a very difficult time understanding.

It is your responsibility to provide for your welfare. In my generosity I may chose to help you but it is despicable to have an oppressive government that steals money from those that earn it and gives it to those that didn't earn. I am sure that since you are an American that believes in liberty you would agree.

 

[Flash]

[


Sadly Flash -- the GOOD news is -- there's no more SS surplus (overcharging) to steal.. So that toy has been taken away from Congress. If there ARE "fixes" to the plan -- they need to address the handling of any FUTURE surpluses -- so this never happens again..

And BTW -- this applies to almost EVERY "trust fund" that the Feds have created. The cupboard there is bare also..

When you run out of money you run out of money.

That seems to always happen with these stupid ill conceived mismanaged government programs, doesn't it?

 

[Fishlore]

Social Security is most definitely NOT a Ponzi Scheme. All Ponzi Schemes are predicated on the sale of securities. Social Security doesn't sell anything. Ponzi Schemes are driven by the investors' desire for profit. Social Security has no investors and does not claim to make profit.

Social Security is a tax program. Ponzi Schemes are not tax programs. The taxation rate is fixed by Congress, as are the eligibility and payment features. It is true that Social Security is inter-generational, that the benefits paid out today were raised by taxes paid previously. Ponzi Schemes never last that long.

The "Ponzi Scheme" nonsense is a tired meme of talk radio. You are, of course, entirely within your rights to hate Social Security and explain why you do so. To use tendentious false analogies as evidence is mere propaganda of the lowest sort. Not that it matters much. The fringe right has about as much chance of toppling Social Security as a mutt pissing on the Washington Monument does of knocking over that noble obelisk..

Ponzi scheme is actually a great definition.

It describes a system where there is a pyramid where the last "investors" get screwed because everybody below them took the money. With a $56 trillion future liability there is a almost certain chance a lot of people are going to get screwed sometime in the future.

The "profit" in this stupid scheme is the money that was raided from the fund that was used by corrupt politicians to fund other projects that had nothing to do with the retirement plan. They paid off unions and special interest groups and got re-elected and maintained power while the people paying the payroll tax got screwed.

When you get corrupt politicians, elected by special interest groups access to a truckload of money they will find a way to spend it, no matter what it was earmarked for. We should never trust government.

The government does not need to be in the business of worrying about your retirement. That is your responsibility. If you are irresponsible then that is your problem. Do better next time.

Why do you believe any of this? Where does the 56 trillion come from? It isn't the Trustees. There is virtually no money in the system for politicians to take. The system has collected about 17 trillion in total revenue. It has paid out 15 trillion or so in benefits. Another 1.5 trillion has been dedicated to financing the interest cost. So where is the money to pay off unions and special interest groups.

Check kiting is much closer. We take money from workers in exchange for the promise of future benefits. We pay those benefits by writing another check to another set of workers. And so forth and so on until boom.

Phony analogies such as Ponzi Scheme and check kiting are neither legal, political nor economic arguments. They are merely fact-free name calling and not worth a response.

The simple-minded Lemonade Stand School of Economics works by (as the name implies) analogy. Real economics does not work by analogy, it works by quantitative data.

The Social Security law has a payroll tax at one end and a schedule of benefits at the other. The laws and policies connecting the two ends of Social Security are, apparently, too difficult for the Lemonade Stand School to grasp.

So-called conservatives have great difficulty understanding ideas with which they do not agree. American conservatives are actually reactionary anarchists. They hate government. They wish there was no government. They don't want to understand government. Instead, they prefer pretend that federal macroeconomic and fiscal policy is a form of consumer household economy writ large. They imagine that Social Security is a passbook savings account. They just don't get it. They don't want to get it. They are too mad at everything to analyze anything. These are the walking wounded from the great battle of Reaganomics. Sad

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Sadly Flash -- the GOOD news is -- there's no more SS surplus (overcharging) to steal.. So that toy has been taken away from Congress. If there ARE "fixes" to the plan -- they need to address the handling of any FUTURE surpluses -- so this never happens again..

And BTW -- this applies to almost EVERY "trust fund" that the Feds have created. The cupboard there is bare also..

Social Security is different from other programs supported by Trust Funds. The government has no liability for SS, beyond the bonds held by the Trust Fund. If the government has a Trust Fund for the superfund or not, is irrelevant. The government has to pay for the clean-up. The Trust Fund is simply an accounting devise to move the cost of the clean-up into a different FY. The assets of those trust funds do not change the level of cost one way or another.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Phony analogies such as Ponzi Scheme and check kiting are neither legal, political nor economic arguments. They are merely fact-free name calling and not worth a response.

The simple-minded Lemonade Stand School of Economics works by (as the name implies) analogy. Real economics does not work by analogy, it works by quantitative data.

The Social Security law has a payroll tax at one end and a schedule of benefits at the other. The laws and policies connecting the two ends of Social Security are, apparently, too difficult for the Lemonade Stand School to grasp.

So-called conservatives have great difficulty understanding ideas with which they do not agree. American conservatives are actually reactionary anarchists. They hate government. They wish there was no government. They don't want to understand government. Instead, they prefer pretend that federal macroeconomic and fiscal policy is a form of consumer household economy writ large. They imagine that Social Security is a passbook savings account. They just don't get it. They don't want to get it. They are too mad at everything to analyze anything. These are the walking wounded from the great battle of Reaganomics. Sad

The response to Ponzi Scheme is ready-baked. You don't have a response for check kiting - so you are reduced to name calling. These aren't analogies.

The structure of Social Security is very similar to check kiting. We write a check to one person in order to cash the last check written. That is a fact about how the system works.

The laws and policies do not connect. That is why there is a nearly $26 trillion shortfall.

 

[healthmyths]

Social Security is most definitely NOT a Ponzi Scheme. All Ponzi Schemes are predicated on the sale of securities. Social Security doesn't sell anything. Ponzi Schemes are driven by the investors' desire for profit. Social Security has no investors and does not claim to make profit.

Social Security is a tax program. Ponzi Schemes are not tax programs. The taxation rate is fixed by Congress, as are the eligibility and payment features. It is true that Social Security is inter-generational, that the benefits paid out today were raised by taxes paid previously. Ponzi Schemes never last that long.

The "Ponzi Scheme" nonsense is a tired meme of talk radio. You are, of course, entirely within your rights to hate Social Security and explain why you do so. To use tendentious false analogies as evidence is mere propaganda of the lowest sort. Not that it matters much. The fringe right has about as much chance of toppling Social Security as a mutt pissing on the Washington Monument does of knocking over that noble obelisk..

Ponzi scheme is actually a great definition.

It describes a system where there is a pyramid where the last "investors" get screwed because everybody below them took the money. With a $56 trillion future liability there is a almost certain chance a lot of people are going to get screwed sometime in the future.

The "profit" in this stupid scheme is the money that was raided from the fund that was used by corrupt politicians to fund other projects that had nothing to do with the retirement plan. They paid off unions and special interest groups and got re-elected and maintained power while the people paying the payroll tax got screwed.

When you get corrupt politicians, elected by special interest groups access to a truckload of money they will find a way to spend it, no matter what it was earmarked for. We should never trust government.

The government does not need to be in the business of worrying about your retirement. That is your responsibility. If you are irresponsible then that is your problem. Do better next time.

Why do you believe any of this? Where does the 56 trillion come from? It isn't the Trustees. There is virtually no money in the system for politicians to take. The system has collected about 17 trillion in total revenue. It has paid out 15 trillion or so in benefits. Another 1.5 trillion has been dedicated to financing the interest cost. So where is the money to pay off unions and special interest groups.

Check kiting is much closer. We take money from workers in exchange for the promise of future benefits. We pay those benefits by writing another check to another set of workers. And so forth and so on until boom.

Phony analogies such as Ponzi Scheme and check kiting are neither legal, political nor economic arguments. They are merely fact-free name calling and not worth a response.

The simple-minded Lemonade Stand School of Economics works by (as the name implies) analogy. Real economics does not work by analogy, it works by quantitative data.

The Social Security law has a payroll tax at one end and a schedule of benefits at the other. The laws and policies connecting the two ends of Social Security are, apparently, too difficult for the Lemonade Stand School to grasp.

So-called conservatives have great difficulty understanding ideas with which they do not agree. American conservatives are actually reactionary anarchists. They hate government. They wish there was no government. They don't want to understand government. Instead, they prefer pretend that federal macroeconomic and fiscal policy is a form of consumer household economy writ large. They imagine that Social Security is a passbook savings account. They just don't get it. They don't want to get it. They are too mad at everything to analyze anything. These are the walking wounded from the great battle of Reaganomics. Sad

No people like me DON"T hate government but we want STATES to be what they are regional governments that ONLY depend on the Federal government ---
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

We the People did NOT want or need the Federal Government to spend TAX monies on these totally irrelevant and wasteful projects!
This is what we the People didn't want from our Federal Government!

10. Outhouse in Alaska:$98,670. The Interior Department spent nearly $100,000 to install an outhouse on an Alaskan trail, which includes a single toilet with no internal plumbing.
9. A bus stop with heated pavement for the Washington area: $1 million. A lavish bus stop with heated pavement was built in Arlington, VA, but it has failed to keep commuters warm or dry.
8. Grant for a pole dancing performance: $10,000. Utility poles, that is. The National Endowment for the Arts provided a grant to PowerUP for Austin Energy employees to perform an artsy dance with 20 utility poles, accompanied by a live orchestra.
7. Pizza — from a printer: $124,995. NASA gave a six-figure grant to a company that aspires to make pizza from a 3-D printer.
6. Study to find out if couples are happier when the woman calms down after argument: $335,525. “[M]arriages that were the happiest were the ones in which the wives were able to calm down quickly during marital conflict,” found a study of 81 couples funded by the National Institutes of Health.

5. Booze and crystal for the State Department: $5.4 million. The State Department went on a bender the week before the government shutdown, purchasing $5 million of “exquisite” crystal glassware to presumably drink the $400,000 in booze they purchased in 2013.

4. Monitoring depression on Twitter: $82,000. The National Institutes of Health is funding a study “to use Twitter for surveillance on depressed people,” according to the Free Beacon.

3. Seven-figure stack of rocks at the London Embassy: $1 million. The American Embassy in London will be receiving a granite sculpture from an artist “whose work resembles stacked piles of paving stones,” according to the Daily Mail.

2. Artwork for Veterans Affairs offices: $562,000. The Department of Veterans Affairs went on a spending spree during “use it or lose it” season, purchasing over half a million in artwork and millions in furniture in a single week.
1. Government employee trip to luxury hotel in the Caribbean: priceless.Federal employees took a taxpayer-funded trip to the Buccaneer Hotel in St. Croix—the same hotel made famous on TV’s “The Bachelor.” The bill was divided among a number of agencies, making a final tally difficult to come by.
Top 10 Examples of Government Waste in 2013

 

[flacaltenn]

Social Security is most definitely NOT a Ponzi Scheme. All Ponzi Schemes are predicated on the sale of securities. Social Security doesn't sell anything. Ponzi Schemes are driven by the investors' desire for profit. Social Security has no investors and does not claim to make profit.

Social Security is a tax program. Ponzi Schemes are not tax programs. The taxation rate is fixed by Congress, as are the eligibility and payment features. It is true that Social Security is inter-generational, that the benefits paid out today were raised by taxes paid previously. Ponzi Schemes never last that long.

The "Ponzi Scheme" nonsense is a tired meme of talk radio. You are, of course, entirely within your rights to hate Social Security and explain why you do so. To use tendentious false analogies as evidence is mere propaganda of the lowest sort. Not that it matters much. The fringe right has about as much chance of toppling Social Security as a mutt pissing on the Washington Monument does of knocking over that noble obelisk..

Ponzi scheme is actually a great definition.

It describes a system where there is a pyramid where the last "investors" get screwed because everybody below them took the money. With a $56 trillion future liability there is a almost certain chance a lot of people are going to get screwed sometime in the future.

The "profit" in this stupid scheme is the money that was raided from the fund that was used by corrupt politicians to fund other projects that had nothing to do with the retirement plan. They paid off unions and special interest groups and got re-elected and maintained power while the people paying the payroll tax got screwed.

When you get corrupt politicians, elected by special interest groups access to a truckload of money they will find a way to spend it, no matter what it was earmarked for. We should never trust government.

The government does not need to be in the business of worrying about your retirement. That is your responsibility. If you are irresponsible then that is your problem. Do better next time.

Why do you believe any of this? Where does the 56 trillion come from? It isn't the Trustees. There is virtually no money in the system for politicians to take. The system has collected about 17 trillion in total revenue. It has paid out 15 trillion or so in benefits. Another 1.5 trillion has been dedicated to financing the interest cost. So where is the money to pay off unions and special interest groups.

Check kiting is much closer. We take money from workers in exchange for the promise of future benefits. We pay those benefits by writing another check to another set of workers. And so forth and so on until boom.

Phony analogies such as Ponzi Scheme and check kiting are neither legal, political nor economic arguments. They are merely fact-free name calling and not worth a response.

The simple-minded Lemonade Stand School of Economics works by (as the name implies) analogy. Real economics does not work by analogy, it works by quantitative data.

The Social Security law has a payroll tax at one end and a schedule of benefits at the other. The laws and policies connecting the two ends of Social Security are, apparently, too difficult for the Lemonade Stand School to grasp.

So-called conservatives have great difficulty understanding ideas with which they do not agree. American conservatives are actually reactionary anarchists. They hate government. They wish there was no government. They don't want to understand government. Instead, they prefer pretend that federal macroeconomic and fiscal policy is a form of consumer household economy writ large. They imagine that Social Security is a passbook savings account. They just don't get it. They don't want to get it. They are too mad at everything to analyze anything. These are the walking wounded from the great battle of Reaganomics. Sad

If the model in your brain of SS is tax at one end and benefits at the other, than you're incapable of defending yourself against all the fraud in the middle. So just crawl right back in the Snug-Eaze and cover your eyes and ears and don't pay any attention to how badly the program has been financed. Won't even know you've been raped.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sadly Flash -- the GOOD news is -- there's no more SS surplus (overcharging) to steal.. So that toy has been taken away from Congress. If there ARE "fixes" to the plan -- they need to address the handling of any FUTURE surpluses -- so this never happens again..

And BTW -- this applies to almost EVERY "trust fund" that the Feds have created. The cupboard there is bare also..

Social Security is different from other programs supported by Trust Funds. The government has no liability for SS, beyond the bonds held by the Trust Fund. If the government has a Trust Fund for the superfund or not, is irrelevant. The government has to pay for the clean-up. The Trust Fund is simply an accounting devise to move the cost of the clean-up into a different FY. The assets of those trust funds do not change the level of cost one way or another.

Not many other trust funds ran up $TRILL dollar surpluses.. But if they did ....... There is a big tussle over a LOT of money missing from the Indian Trust Fund. And there -- (IIRC) there's a large yr to yr carryover of income. Indians learned a lot of economics/finance from the Casino biz and are probably hot on the trail...